Joseph A. Mondzelewski, Rebecca Mondzelewski v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., Supermarkets General Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that plaintiff’s assignment to 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shift was an adverse employment action when most other employers in the same role either worked from 6:00 a.m to 2:00 p.m. or from noon until evening and plaintiff’s shifts were considered “punishment shifts”
• stating that if a plaintiff is substantially limited in any of those major life activities other than work, the individual qualifies as “disabled” and the inquiry ceases
• explaining that while “the relatively mild nature of [defendant’s] allegedly retaliatory conduct may not be without legal significance, it is not dispositive with respect to the narrow legal question now before us”
• explaining that were it otherwise “every action that an ‘irritable, chip-on-the-shoulder employee did not like would form the basis of a discrimination suit’” (quoting Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1300 (3d Cir. 1997))
• rejecting argument that plaintiff is not substantially limited in working merely because he was able to perform his job with accommodation
• \Assigning an employee to an undesirable schedule can be more than a 'trivial' or minor change in the employee's working conditions.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).